REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. No.2310/2008, I.A. Nos. 2378-2379/2009, I.A. No. 2269, I.A. No. 2270, I.A. No. 2393, I.A. Nos. 2381-2384 IN W.P. (C) No. 4677 OF 1985 M.C. Mehta ....Petitioner versus Union of India & Ors. .... Respondents In Re : Kant Enclave matters WITH I.A. Nos. 2310-2311 IN W.P. (C) No. 202/1995

J U D G M E N T

Madan B. Lokur, J

1. The principal question that arises in this batch of substantive applications is whether, in the State of Haryana, land notified under the provisions of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (for short the PLP Act) is forest land or is required to be treated as forest land. If so, whether Signature Not Verified D SA ig N ita J l A ly Y s K ig U n M ed A b R y construction carried out by the applicant R. Kant & Co. on this land is in Date: 2018.09.11

12:01:26 IST Reason:

contravention of the notification dated 18^th August, 1992 issued under the provisions of the PLP Act, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and decisions of this Court.

2. Our answer to both the questions is in the affirmative. We have no doubt that land notified by the State of Haryana under the provisions of the PLP Act must be treated as ‘forest’ and ‘forest land’ and has in fact been so treated for several decades by the State of Haryana. There is no reason to change or alter the factual or legal position. The construction activity carried out by the applicant R. Kant & Co. is clearly in violation of the notification dated 18^th August, 1992 and in blatant defiance of orders passed by this Court from time to time. Unfortunately, the Town & Country Planning Department of the State of Haryana has been supporting the illegalities of the applicant despite strong resistance from the Forest Department of the State of Haryana. There is no doubt that at the end of the day, the State of Haryana comes out in very poor light and must be held accountable for its conflicting and self-destructive stand taken in spite of affidavits filed by the Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana from time to time supporting the Forest Department.

3. The unfortunate and distressing consequence of this is that because of a complete lack of any concern for the environmental and ecological degradation carried out in the Aravalli hills by influential colonizers like the applicant and what appears to be a very strong mining lobby in Haryana, the damage caused to the Aravalli hills is irreversible. It is not only the future generations that have to pay a heavy price for this environmental degradation, but even the present generation is paying a heavy price for the environmental and ecological degradation inasmuch as there is an acute water shortage in the area as prophesied by the Central Ground Water Board. In addition, what was once a popular tourist destination, namely, Badkal Lake has now vanished and the entire water body has become bone dry. What are the more severe consequences that will be felt in the years to come, only time and nature will tell.

Brief background

4. By a communication dated 17^th April, 1984 the Commissioner & Secretary, Town & Country Planning Department of the State of Haryana granted exemption to the applicant R. Kant & Co. for setting up a Film Studio and Allied Complex in Khasra Nos. 9 to 16 (owned by the applicant) in village Anangpur in Faridabad district. The exemption was granted under Section 23 of the Haryana Development & Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 on certain terms and conditions. Section 23 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 reads as follows:

“23. Power to exempt– If the Government is of the opinion that the operation of any of the provisions of this Act causes undue hardship or circumstances exist which render it expedient so to do, it may, subject to such terms and conditions as it may impose, by a general or special order, exempt any class of persons or areas from all or any of the provisions of this Act.”

5. The validity of the exempt